The Hon. (Prof.) A.H.M.H. Abayarathna - Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, thank you for the opportunity. I wish to first respond to several points raised by Opposition Members this morning regarding the extension of the emergency.

¶ 02 One Member said the extension is to stifle trade union action—for example, to suppress Grama Niladhari union action—under emergency, instead of resolving issues through dialogue. Regarding Grama Niladharis, there was a technical issue; we have discussed with them and taken all necessary steps to resolve it; they have agreed to our solution. Therefore, there is no need to use emergency to suppress such action; we engage and resolve.

¶ 03 Similarly, issues of Disaster Management officials have also been addressed. Thus, the claim that emergency is used to crush trade unions is entirely rejected.

¶ 04 Some Opposition Members asserted national security is gravely challenged and that we were unaware of the attack on the Iranian ship; that due to lack of awareness, national security is in severe crisis. Ironically, the same Opposition which earlier portrayed any shooting anywhere as a national security breakdown now cites international events as threats. This is, in a sense, fate’s irony.

¶ 05 Regarding the ship sinking and the strike on Iran: Iran is a country with a high level of military preparedness and advanced indigenous technology. Yet even such a nation did not have prior awareness to prevent the assassination of its leader. Previously, a similar situation occurred in Venezuela. If parties with more advanced weaponry and technology cannot straightforwardly detect such operations, questioning our awareness is simply politically motivated.

¶ 06 Some Members also spoke about rising prices—fuel, gas, medicines, food—and export constraints. This is true, as the President himself said; if the war drags on, future challenges could be greater. But observing their body language reveals a different intent: while verbally expressing “concern,” inwardly they seem pleased that the Government might face difficulties.

¶ 07 On the “IRIS DANA” incident, various narratives are being pushed—some aimed at creating public fear. In truth, our intervention was in accordance with international conventions. Under UNCLOS Article 98, coastal States have a duty to render assistance to any person in distress at sea. Under the SAR Convention, irrespective of nationality, status or cause of distress, rescue is a duty of nearby States. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, wounded or shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea are protected persons entitled to medical aid. We were bound, and we complied.

¶ 08 This recalls Kautilya’s Mandala theory—relationships in international affairs: enemies, friends, friend’s friend, enemy’s friend, and the “neutral” who intervenes as mediator without joining conflict—modern non-alignment. We observe non-alignment, aiming to safeguard peace in the Indian Ocean, and undertake maximum humanitarian action accordingly. There are also “Akrandas”—those who simply shout from one side—today, some shout against the Government. We understand this context and act per international agreements and conventions.

¶ 09 There are many precedents: during the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq war, in the Persian Gulf, many oil tankers were attacked by both sides; neutral nations’ naval and merchant vessels—including Indian, French and Japanese—assisted crews regardless of nationality. In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano; even then, the Royal Navy undertook efforts to save enemy sailors. I cite these to counter fear-mongering. We acted in conformity with international law and conventions. We assure our people: we will manage this situation to the maximum, upholding non-alignment and humanely intervening.

¶ 10 Thank you.